Standing Behind Agents Who Make Mistakes

During a recent call to my medical insurance provider, I encountered a twenty minute hold period (seriously – a twenty minute hold time in the "age of the empowered customer?").

Over the course of that twenty minute wait, I frequently encountered a recorded disclaimer.

While I did not jot down the looped message word-for-word, I distinctly remember its core thesis: "The information our agents provide may differ from that articulated in your policy. In such cases, what is written in the policy will prevail."

I was captivated.

It is not that the existence of the message was surprising. Given the sensitivity and significance of healthcare issues, I expect providers to issue a laundry list of disclaimers. Some may even be required by law.

My intrigue instead came from speculation about how often the organization needs to apply such a disclaimer.

My mind then wandered to the possibility that other organizations – notably those dealing with less regulatory oversight – issue similar disclaimers (or at least operate with a similar mindset).

Ultimately, I was left with a simple line of questioning: are today’s businesses standing behind their agents? Should they? Can they?

A clear impact on the customer experience

At its core, the disclaimer is simultaneously an admission that agents make mistakes and a declaration that the organization refuses to be held accountable for those mistakes.

If an agent issues incorrect information or makes an untenable promise, the business will not stand behind that agent.

In doing so, the business will effectively be telling the customer to ignore what he was offered and to forget what he was told.

Clear customer experience considerations emerge.

For starters, there is the question of why. Why is the business going back on the agent’s word? What is the harm of honoring what was promised – even if that promise deviates from standard terms and conditions?

A medical insurer dealing with a multi-million dollar, life-threatening situation may have a good answer. A retailer that chooses not to honor a slightly extended window on a product return may not.

The default 2016 business mindset involves putting the customer first, so an organization must have a compelling reason for doing otherwise.

An organization with a compelling case for going back on its word is not, however, out of the woods. Its decision still involves breaking a promise to a customer – and thus still carries potential consequences.

In microscopic terms, the customer is going to be upset no matter how justified the business was in its final decision. When making that decision, it is important for the business to anticipate the customer’s level of frustration. It must also determine how it will remedy that frustration.

From a big picture perspective, the customer – both the specific customer and the collective "customer" – may lose trust in a business that goes back on its initial word. The customer will certainly lose faith in a support process that allows agents to waste time communicating incorrect and unsustainable information.

Fostering the unfortunate

The previous section focuses on the ramifications of agent mistakes. Treating those mistakes as inevitable, it ponders whether an organization should uphold the mistaken information – or revert to the written policy.

There is another dimension to this story: why should we treat those mistakes as inevitable? Why should we assume that agent communication will ever differ from corporate policy, let alone often enough to warrant a disclaimer stipulating protocol in the event such mistakes emerge?

In truth, while it is important to be prepared – or at least nimble – in the event mistakes do occur, businesses should not operate under the assumption that mistakes will occur. Organizations operating under such an assumption have far more to address than their disclaimer regarding misinformation.

Consider the logical contradiction. On the one hand, businesses deem standard policy so important that they’re willing to break agents’ promises in order to uphold that policy. On the other hand, they foster an environment in which such mistakes are expected, let alone plausible.

They foster an environment that greatly bottlenecks customer-centricity. In doing so, it greatly bottlenecks success.

There are numerous elements at play. Organizations that properly value and correctly manage these elements will minimize mistakes, maximize experiential consistency and amplify satisfaction. Organizations that do not will make mistakes. They will find themselves in the awkward, if not debilitating situation of needing to decide between honoring what was promised and honoring what corporate policy says should have been promised.

Training and Development: Customer-facing agents must possess a complete understanding of the product and associated service policies. When dealing with policy-bound issues, he should never waver – let alone err – in his effort to accurately communicate with customers.

While businesses obviously cannot train their agents on the specifics of new, unique, and unprecedented issues, it must properly train them on the spirit of the business and its service effort. If an agent understands the intent of a company’s policies and philosophy toward customer care, he can solve unexpected issues the way the business would want him to solve them.

Knowledge Management: Because humans are not computers, businesses must complement strong training with strong knowledge management. Customer-facing agents must have instant, intuitive access to all relevant insight about the customer, his issue, and the relevant policies and procedures. An agent in a delicate situation absolutely should know the ins and outs of every policy that may apply, but he should also be able to confirm – and tailor – those policies based on the specific interaction.

Trust: Not always rooted in facts, mistakes are sometimes matters of perception. Sometimes, the approach designated by the policy is not the one best suited for the customer.

A contact center built on trust recognizes – and allows – for that reality. Confident that its agents understand the business’ objectives, understand the relevant legal and regulatory issues and understand the company’s philosophy on customer centricity, these businesses entrust and empower agents to optimally handle customer service interactions. They see the mistake not as the agent’s deviation from the policy but as the policy’s deviation from what was best for the customer.

There is no winning in losing, so don’t lose

Mistake or not, impractical or not, the customer expects the business to honor its word. A business that cannot honor its word, no matter how theoretically justified in doing so, is not meeting the customer’s expectation. A degree of dissatisfaction – sometimes trivial, sometimes serious – will inherently emerge.

Such situations are therefore of the lose-lose variety. The business presumably has a reason for wanting to protect its written policies, and it would thus be making an undesirable compromise to honor the agent’s inaccurate, ill-advised promise. On the other hand, if maximizing customer satisfaction represents the ultimate corporate objective, a business that goes back on its word is fundamentally falling short of its key ambition.

The most successful businesses avoid these situations altogether. Instead of debating whether to stand behind agents who make mistakes, they stand behind agents because they are confident such agents could not have made mistakes.